FARLAND LOAN & SAVINGS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
A. R. PITTMAN, DEFENDANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court granted a motion to quash a writ of certiorari, affirming a lower court's decision that the defendant was the head of a family entitled to homestead exemption. The court found the evidence sufficient to support this finding.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the defendant was the head of a family for the purposes of homestead exemption.
“The only question attempted to be presented to us is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to support the judgment based upon the finding that the defendant was and is the head of a family within the purview of the provisions of Section 3885 R. G. S., 5792 C. G. L.”
This quote frames the central legal question before the court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFarland Loan & Savings Company obtained a judgment against A. R. Pittman and served a writ of garnishment on a third party. Pittman claimed homestead …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Head Of A Family cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us on writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Duval County.
Petitioner procured a judgment against the defendant in the Civil Court of Record of Duval County. Writ of garnishment was sued out and served on the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, which company' answered admitting indebtedness to the defendant. Defendant filed affidavit claiming homestead exemption as the head of a family residing at 2539 Beaver St., Jacksonville, Florida. Traverse of such affidavit was filed. The issues came on to be tried and resulted in a directed verdict in favor of the defendant.
Motion for new trial was made and denied.
Writ of error was taken and the judgment of the Civil Court of Record affirmed by the Circuit Court. Writ of certiorari issued from this Court to review the proceedings.
• The' only question attempted to be presented to us is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to support the judgment based upon the finding that the defendant was and is the head of a family within the purview of the provisions of Section 3885 R. G. S., 5792 C. G. L. The issue is presented by motion to quash.
*443The record and briefs have been examined and considered and we find that motion to quash the writ of certiorari should be granted on authority of the opinion and judgment in the case of Hamway v. S. A. L. Ry. Co., 101. Fla. 1483, 136 Sou. 628, when taken and considered in connection with .the opinion and judgment in the case of Davis v. Miami Beach Bank & Trust Co., 99 Fla, 1282, 128 Sou. 817, and cases there cited. It is so ordered.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Brown, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peacock v. Lon Miller, 123 Fla. 97 (Fla. 1936)…rohibition, but not on appeal from a judgment denying a writ of prohibition.” There was no error committed by this court in granting the supersedeas. Hughes v. Blanton, 120 Fla. 446, 162 Sou. 914. And in West’s Drug Store v. Cornelius, 108 Fla. 509, 146 So. 554, it was held, that the Circuit Court, which had issued the rule nisi in prohibition but had rendered a final judgment denying the writ absolute, could grant supersedeas pending writ of error to such final judgment, which supersedeas had the effect o…
-
Elvine v. Pub. Fin. Co., 196 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…ry purpose of the statute is to preserve to the unfortunate debtor and his family a means of living without becoming a charge upon the public. See Patten Package Co. v. Houser, 102 Fla. 603, 136 So. 353 (1931); Farland Loan & Savings Co. v. Pittman, 108 Fla. 442, 146 So. 554 (1933); Slatcoff v. Dezen, Fla. 1954, 76 So. 2d 792. Reversed and remanded with directions-to quash the writ of garnishment.…
-
Hughes v. The Honorable W. F. Blanton, 120 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1935)…otion by plaintiff in error to quash the order of the Circuit Judge granting supersedeas to his judgment was denied by this Court on the 19th day of June, 1935, on the authority of State, ex rel. West’s Drug Stores, Inc., v. Cornelius, 108 Fla. 509, 146 Sou. Rep. 554, but in consideration of the nature of the controversy involved, the Court has advanced the hearing of the appeal for an early, determination of its merits. The petition to the County Judge for inquisition of lunacy was in form and substance as fol…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. Miami Beach Bank & Tr. Co., 99 Fla. 1282 (Fla. 1930)
- Hamway v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 101 Fla. 1483 (Fla. 1931)